[09:51] <mitsuhiko> jodh: there is nothing wrong with the job
[09:52] <mitsuhiko> feel free to doubt that, but unfortunately that is the case
[16:28] <SpamapS> mitsuhiko: I would agree. The problem is upstart's fragility with regard to following forks.
[16:29] <SpamapS> mitsuhiko: the two options for avoiding this bug, are to not use expect fork/daemon (run in the foreground) or fore-go the process tracking of upstart and use pre-start/post-stop to create a pid file/kill said pid.
[16:30] <mitsuhiko> why does upstart track daemonizing behavior at all anyways?
[16:31] <mitsuhiko> there are much better ways than that
[16:31] <SpamapS> boot speed
[16:32] <SpamapS> mitsuhiko: for some of the early plumbing, we want to start running dependant tasks/jobs ASAP.. and often, on fork of a daemon is ASAP
[16:33] <mitsuhiko> what's wrong with cgroups?
[16:33] <mitsuhiko> then you can see what damage the proess did after the fact
[16:37] <SpamapS> nothing is wrong with cgroups
[16:37] <SpamapS> they did not exist when upstart was written
[16:46] <SpamapS> mitsuhiko: there is a mid-term plan to provide an alternative to the ptrace technique that expect * uses.
[19:48] <mitsuhiko> SpamapS: ignore my snark. upstart just caused me so many issues this week :-/
[22:04] <SpamapS> mitsuhiko: no worries. It has caused me quite a few issues the last 2.5 years ;)